Gov’t ordered to pay TPL $1.7B in damages over Turkeyen land.

(November 2015: An aerial shot of the large-scale construction works that are ongoing at the site of the US$30M MovieTowne Guyana complex at Turkeyen, East Coast Demerara.)

The government was yesterday ordered to pay over $1.7 billion in damages to Toolsie Persaud Limited (TPL), after losing its challenge to the company’s ownership of land at Turkeyen, including the site of the MovieTowne cinema complex and shopping mall.

The judgment in the legal dispute, which dates decades, was handed down yesterday morning by Justice Brassington Reynolds, who also ordered the government to pay interest as well as half a million dollars to the hardware company in court costs.

In its action in the High Court for damages against the government and its agent, the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL), the plaintiff TPL argued that it never repudiated its 1987 agreement by which it bought from the State, led then by the PNC government, several plots of land in the disputed Turkeyen/Liliendaal, East Coast Demerara area.

The specific disputed areas were those of ‘K,’ ‘O,’ ‘J’ and ‘N.’

It had been the State’s case that TPL had repudiated the contract after applying for prescriptive title and so the plots of land could no longer have been considered to be the company’s.

The court, however, ruled that the plaintiff had not repudiated its agreement for the purchase of the land.

In a detailed ruling delivered from the bench over the course of almost two hours, Justice Reynolds noted that the State could not seek to, as it had done, compulsorily acquire the lands for the more than 12 years it had belonged to the plaintiff.

The court noted, too, that the State’s claims to adverse possession could not operate.

The judge noted that as opposed to the State’s arguments that TPL had repudiated its agreement by applying for prescriptive title, it was in fact seeking an alternative route of retaining the lands through that process which can be afforded after an elapse of 12 years.

The court noted with consternation, also, the fact that the defendants never once sought to enquire from TPL during that 12-year period the status of the agreement, which was still in existence at that time.

To the government’s argument that the purported repudiation frustrated the 1987 agreement, the judge said it did not, nor was it rendered void for any common mistake under which either party may have been labouring as to who the disputed plots belonged to.

The court held that from the agreement, the lands belonged to TPL in accordance with the 1987 agreement and never ceased to so be.

Referencing case law, Justice Reynolds said that before a contract could be considered frustrated and no longer capable of being performed, there must be a supervening event which causes a change so radical that what was contracted could no longer be possible.

He said it must be something which radically changes the very “thing” that was contracted for, while adding that the frustrating event could not be the cause or fault of either party.

Having regard to these principles, the judge said that the contract was at no time frustrated, as there were no circumstances in the agreement which qualified it as so being.

Additionally, the court highlighted that any fault would lay at the feet of the defendants, who sought to acquire the lands after sale and tried thereafter to invoke rights to adverse possession.

Also noted by the judge was that the plaintiffs have always demonstrated a readiness to execute the terms upon which the sale of land was made to it. In this regard, the court noted payments which TPL had already begun paying towards the purchase price.

Ruling that the defendants were in breach of the agreement, Justice Reynolds ordered the government and NICIL, jointly and severally, to pay over to TPL damages to the tune of $1,745,203,346.

Of that sum, he awarded for area ‘K,’ $1,104,679,346 and for area ‘O,’ $640,524,000.

Meanwhile, for areas ‘J’ and ‘N,’ he ordered specific performance by the defendants.

To the sums awarded, the judge ordered that interest be paid at a rate of 6% per annum from the filing of the writ in 2008 to yesterday’s date. Additionally, interest of 4% per annum has to be paid from the date of judgement, until full payment.

The court also awarded TPL court costs in the sum of $500,000 which also has to be borne by the defendants.

To the $2, 170,000 purchase price for the land, part of which TPL had already paid, the judge said that it is to be allowed to pay the remaining balance.

Lawyers for the State asked for and were granted a six-week stay of execution in the event of an appeal.

TPL and the government were represented by Senior Counsel Robin Stoby and Ashton Chase, respectively. NICIL, meanwhile, was represented by attorney Timothy Jonas.

The entire tract of land had been the subject of a compulsory acquisition order (CAO) of June 8th 1977. In October 1987, the state contracted to sell the entire tract to TPL and the company took possession in April 1988.

In May of 2011, Multicinemas Guyana Inc. purchased part of the disputed land from NICIL for $187 million for the building of a cinema and a mall. Multicinemas is owned by the MovieTowne shopping complex, located in Port of Spain, Trinidad.

Govt told to pay $260M for TPL land on Water Street Council already demarcating plots for 538 vendors

Justice BS Roy on Friday ordered the government to pay $260M compensation for the compulsory acquisition of Toolsie Persaud Limited’s (TPL’s) Water Street property and the wheels were already in motion yesterday to have vendors relocated there.

There was no official word yesterday from either side on the court’s ruling but the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) yesterday began demarcating spots on the property which is to accommodate approximately 538 stalls. Sources say the council’s decision was based on communication from the Office of the President on Friday that the court’s ruling would be accepted.

The ruling dates back to a 2001 legal proceeding brought by TPL challenging the state’s acquisition of the land. TPL Lawyers Rex McKay, SC and Edward Luckhoo, SC, had filed a constitutional motion in the High Court, seeking a variety of remedies as they said the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 40, 142 and 149 of the Constitution, were being and were likely to be contravened.

In the motion it was highlighted that President Bharrat Jagdeo had stated that the government would not pay more than $100M for the land. This, the company said, was at odds with the mandatory constitutional provision that where land is compulsorily obtained the government must pay the “current market value,” then estimated by TPL at $457M.

Stabroek News understands that Deputy Mayor Robert Williams called an emergency meeting of the Markets Committee on Friday at City Hall following the court’s ruling, where arrangements for the vendors’ occupation were discussed.

Williams, who is Chairman of the Committee, is said to have reported to the committee that a meeting had been held at the Office of the President with President Jagdeo who undertook to accept the judgement of the court and to pay the compensation to TPL. This information was contained in an Office of the President letter which was dispatched to Justice Roy and copied to the Attorney-General who represented the government at the court hearing. Representatives of the committee set up by the vendors to watch their interests were present at the city council meeting. Committee secretary, Marilyn Converty told Stabroek News yesterday that the vendors were happy with the ruling and would begin business tomorrow. Stabroek News was informed that the vendors were told that they could store their goods at the site until an agreement was worked out on the type of stalls to be built on the property.

It is also understood that certain areas on Water Street have been identified to be cleared following the Deputy Mayor’s announcement. The area is designated to accommodate 538 stalls and city workers could be seen yesterday demarcating 8x6 ft, 6x6 ft and 6x4 ft plots.

“Government acquired the land and the vendors are willing to move,” Converty said, adding, “This is no longer Toolsie Persaud’s mall. This is the vendors’ mall now and as of today we officially take possession of it.”

Following a ruling on April 30, 2001 by the then Chief Justice Desiree Bernard, vendors occupying areas on Water Street were ordered to remove. The government, in response, approached the principals of TPL to negotiate the purchase of the property, to accommodate the vendors.

The company had valued the land and the installation works already done at $457M, while in public utterances government functionaries had said it was worth no more than $100M.

Consequent to this, the government on August 16, 2001 moved to the National Assembly and passed the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes (Amend-ment) Act 2001 to acquire land for public work or a public purpose whether or not there were any buildings or erections on it. It was believed that the purpose of the amendment was tailored to the TPL land.

TPL sought declarations that land was not needed by the State for a public purpose; that section 6 A of the Acquisition of Lands for Public Purposes (Amend-ment) Act 2001 was unconstitutional as it was not passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament and that the money paid or to be paid by the State purportedly as compensation was not based on a scientific professional assessment by an independent valuer of the then market value. TPL also requested a declaration that it was not competent for the government to enter the land until it had paid the applicant the current market value or has lodged it with the Registry of the High Court.

In June, the city began breaking down permanent structures on Water Street in keeping with Justice Bernard’s ruling and vendors were made to move from the pavements after 6 pm. This, they said, caused them hardship as they had nowhere to store their goods.

The facility on the TPL lot is expected to provide them with storage space.

Add Reply

About This Site

Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here. A note of warning, the Political forum is not for the faint of heart. We do have some rules, so please adhere to them.

This Forum is owned by Guyana
News and Information and is jointly operated with guyanafriends.com
By registering on this site, you agree to the terms and conditions of our Privacy
Statement - Terms of Use.
This website takes no responsibility for statements posted by participants on
the Forum. The textual, graphic,
audio and audiovisual material on our sites is protected by copyright law.
You may not copy, distribute, or use these materials except as necessary for your
personal, non-commercial use.
Any trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.

Premium Membership Required

Access to this requires a premium membership.

GNI VIP Member

Welcome to the Original Guyanese Discussion Forums, first established in 1996. Here you can discuss, ask questions or generally debate anything related to politics, movies, music, health or just gyaff away your day/night here.

Please note while you do have free access to our Forums, the Political Forum will now be a Paid Membership Forum. What does this mean? To write in the Political Forum you must be a paying member. The fee is $25.00 US per year and is non refundable. Payment can be done through PayPal.Membership is not automatically renewed and you can cancel anytimeWe do have some rules, so please adhere to them.